NORM

I'm not one for quoting scripture, but since Mr. Ryan seems to regard the Bible as WOG, ... I'm sure there's a good explanation for the seeming contradiction. NORM

I'm "ortho-dontic" - I like clean teeth. Raven, I couldn't agree with you more. As a child raised to believe that Jesus was all about love, forgiveness and kindness, the current "keepers of the faith" exhibit little of this. I no longer associate myself with a "Christian" worldview because of this. I guess you could say that I am post-orthodox. NORM

I think it is difficult to do so, but probably easier for those on the progressive side, since most atheists tend toward progressive ideologies and, thus see no need of conjuring up deities to justify their positions. Conservatives, in my experience, seem to blend a fundamentalist religious worldview with conservative politics (for example; abortion, same-sex marriage, welfare). They appear to posit the theory that G-d prefers capitalism over communism, hetero over gay, pro-life over women's rights, and rugged individualism over charity. I tend to be more progressive in my political beliefs, and non-theistic in my religious beliefs, so I fit this generalization. I guess that would depend on whom you consider "the least of these." My conservative friends tell me that the least of these are fellow Christians (the righteous). I've always understood the Biblical passage as referring to the poor and dispossessed. I've always thought that churches ought to pay property taxes like everyone else. They could earn tax credits based on how much they contribute to the community. It's only the beginning of September, and I am already weary of the constant barrage of campaigning. My daughter and I are the only progressives in the family, and have come to dread this time of year. The political discourse is not conducive to productive debate. I wish that we could go back to a time when cable "news" television didn't exist. NORM

"We're all Bozos on this Bus." - Firesign Theater NORM

I have a theory as to why this is true. I think it goes to human nature. Jesus' teaching was so counter-cultural, that it is far more difficult to put into action. Paul's teaching lends itself to a judgmental attitude. This is something with which the human animal excels. Many years ago, I taught an adult Sunday School class. As I began to evolve, I would try to question some of those dogmas - to a very chilly response. The leaders of the church came down on me like a ton of bricks. Chipping away at the foundations of a rigid theology is harmful to children and other living things! I do not characterize Jesus' teaching as doctrine. To my way of thinking, Jesus was a wandering philosopher in the fashion of the ancient Greek Stoics. I think that he was a disciple of Hillel (who was a bit of a reformer himself). When pressed, most Christians will admit that Jesus was a practicing Jew. How they internalize that fact, however, is where the disconnect begins. That's when Paul's gospel supersedes Jesus' worldview. I mean, it's hard to feel self righteous while seeking to dismantle the walls that divide us. NORM

I would have to say that letting go of my reliance on belief in an afterlife in order to give this life meaning is the most liberating thing in my journey thus far. Previously, I was mainly concerned with getting the specifics of my faith correct in order to secure my position in the afterlife. There is an old cliche that aptly describes my former attitude: so heavenly minded that [i was] no earthly good. By gleaning from Christian, Talmudic and Buddhist teaching, I've embraced the moment and dwell in the here and now. My focus is on meeting the challenges and joys of this life. NORM

Hello??? NORM

Under Pope Damascus, the construction of the Holy Scriptures was detailed in a document entitled, THE 'DECRETUM GELASIANUM DE LIBRIS RECIPIENDIS ET NON RECIPIENDIS' (the full list of condemned titles can be found here: http://www.tertullia...ecretum_eng.htm ) At the end of the list of "approved" gospels, the following list of Non Recipiendis (non-approved) gospel writers is detailed: My guess is most were destroyed, and certainly were vilified. I can imagine that works written by women (who still are kept at arms length from full participation in the faith) were summarily ignored. NORM

I think that I could describe myself as a fellow Apatheist. At this point in my life, I prefer not to align myself with any identifiable belief system. I trust only in the moment. Ah, here is the crux of the issue. As defined by "most Christians." I think that as people evolve, the way we think and view things also must evolve. The seven tenets used to define Christianity, as Bishop Spong has so eloquently described, cease to be relevant in our society today. I think there is a movement of people who attach themselves to the philosophies of men (and I count the philosophy of Jesus among them) taking what kernels of wisdom they can glean in which to navigate this world. Thanks for sharing your insights, Ron. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance. NORM

I write them down immediately upon awakening. I don't "remember" certain details, but the events are all pretty clear. Most of my dreams tell complete stories. They are composed largely of events that have happened both in the past (both distant and recent - sometimes in a mixed fashion) and events that are a pure creation of my mind. I often "direct" these dreams by focusing on an event or something that I would like to explore. NORM

BTW, you do have TOTAL recall of dreams. What you mean to say is that most people don't know how to "access" those dreams. I've learned how, and have total recall of my dreams. Sometimes, I can even direct them. The brain is the most awesome analog recorder on the planet! NORM

Heh - it's not "awareness" if you are not, like; "aware." What would be the point of a soul that doesn't inform the body it's responsible for? No, to me, it's just another nail in the coffin of the supernatural. NORM

Yes, further investigation on my part did reveal this. Sadly, it was, in my opinion, an overreaction that probably doesn't help advance the GLBT community's fight for equal rights. That's good that he apologized. He should. I think the whole Chick-Fil-A thing was an embarrassment for the Christian community. Here's an article written by a sane, rational, Christian - just so we don't generalize that ALL evangelical Christians were stuffing factory-fed, deep-fried chicken down their gullets: http://matthewpaultu...iled-yesterday/ NORM

It grieves me that Christians seem to be leading the "cause" of defending marriage. And how is this defense mounted? Why, by demonizing gay couples and denying them the right to marry the person of his or her dreams. How does this defend marriage? By denying a group of committed couples the institute of marriage, are they not subverting their own purported cause? They say they are supporting Biblical marriage. I think they are thinking of some other Bible, because from what I've learned, marriage between ONE man and ONE wife is hardly the norm. 1. Arranged marriages are the standard. Also, cross-ethnic marriages were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history. Genesis 2:24 2. If a woman was “married” and infertile, she could give her property; her slave, to her husband as a wife. The most famous examples are Abraham, Genesis 16:1-6, and Jacob, Genesis 30:4-5. A futuristic horror novel was based on this theme in The Handmaiden's Tale, where fundamentalist Christians (shudder) rule the world. 3. A slave owner (slavery was also the "norm" in the Biblical world) could order a female slave to “marry” a male slave without any input from the female. The consummation of this “union” usually involved rape. Exodus 21:4 4. If a man raped a woman and she wasn’t married, she would be forced to marry him. A man could rape any woman that he liked and they would be considered married. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 5. Women become the property of the victors of war. Female captives were forced to submit to their male captors, usually by force. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 and Numbers 31:1-18 6. When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. Genesis 38:6-10 Those are just a few of the examples I could find in a 20 minute search. So much for "family values" found in the Bible. NORM

This issue has really heated up, and I'm more surprised and appalled at the behavior of Chick-fil-A defenders than in the man at the center of the controversy, Dan Cathy. Here is the article from which the controversy arose: http://www.bpnews.ne...ws.asp?ID=38271 And here is the damning quote: Of course, we all know that "traditional family values" is conservative, evangelical-speak for "marriage is for Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." But, does the above quote rise to the level of gay-bashing as some contend? Or, is this much ado over nothing? As far as I know, Chick-fil-A does not discriminate against gays when it comes to hiring or in its service to patrons. Does Cathy support anti-gay organizations? Probably. He IS a member of a Baptist church in the south. I don't know who fired the first shot, but irregardless, Chick-fil-A and its "supporters" stand at loggerheads with the GLBT community and its supporters, of whom I count myself as a member. Mike Huckabee, a Fox News talkie, decided to make defense of factory-farm chickens 4Jesus a moral battlefield in the Conservative war against Progressives, Gays and their ilk (i.e.; Democrats). Consequently, I've witnessed nearly all of my Christian friends post photos of greasy chicken buckets and waffle fries on their Facebook pages, and Dan Cathy has been suddenly thrust into the Conservative Hall of Fame as a defender of freedom of speech! What? Freedom of speech? I thought this was all about traditional family values? I'm confused. I am also curious. How do my PC friends respond to this issue? Did you go to Chick-Fil-A on August 1st? Did you kiss a member of your own sex on August 2nd? Or, did you, like me, enjoy a garden-crisp salad of field greens, romaine lettuce and grilled, free-range, non-antibiotic-laced chicken breast instead? NORM

You could have stopped right there, as far as I'm concerned. I like your attempt to make Christianity more accepting of other faith journeys. I just have one question: do you believe everything that Jesus taught as "truth?" For example, Jesus taught that a man should only be the husband of one woman. He didn't allow (in his teaching as revealed in the Christian scriptures) for divorce. Do you allow, then, a woman to divorce from an abusive husband? NORM

Folks, I just finished reading a book on the subject of Immortality by Steven Cave http://www.stephenca...mmortality.html that may shed some light on this discussion. In one chapter, he analyzes the concept of the soul found in many religions. He concludes that a soul, independent of the body, would be impossible. Therefore, what we are imagining as a soul is really the mind. When the body dies, the mind ceases functioning and consciousness ceases. One way we can test this theory is when one is rendered unconscious by a blow to the head or during anesthesia for surgery. If the soul were independent of the body, shouldn't we have awareness of what is happening to our body during these events? I once experienced unconsciousness for two days following an automobile accident. I woke up and had no memory of the previous two days. Now, why didn't my soul "take over" during that time? Interesting. NORM

I still think the analogy is flawed. Guns were invented to kill people. They were an improvement over the bow and arrow used by armies. That they are handy for shooting game is an unintended consequence, but not the primary reason for being. Hunters preferred bow and arrow over the earliest rifles because they were far more accurate. Hell, I STILL prefer bow and arrow for hunting. It doesn't scare other game away. I don't think that I did. Your argument is that automobiles can kill just like guns due to incompetence. Well, yes; but cars were not invented to kill people. Further, even an incompetent person can kill with a shotgun. The British were defeated by our professionally trained sharpshooters who killed their generals and commanders, thus leaving the British troops confused and disorganized. Had the Revolution depended on the armed, amateur citizenry, we would be drinking tea at 4PM today. Precisely my point. Unfortunately, GWB threw out the law that would have saved the lives of many folks in that theater. You don't know much about bombs! Not only are the types of bombs you would need to do something like assault a crowd in a theater unstable and unreliable, but they are HIGHLY REGULATED. We HAD perfectly good laws in place, but politicians, bowing to pressure from the NRA, took them away. As long as the NRA supports the legal possession of assault weapons, they are part of the problem. I don't think it is disputable that, had the Assault Weapons Ban been in place, that mentally disturbed young man would only be able to get off one shot every 8 seconds. Many people would be alive today as a result. Why mourn when we can prevent? NORM

I think your analogy is not valid in the context of this discussion. Cars, knives, clubs and cell phones were not manufactured with the sole purpose of killing. Firearms are unique in this. Their sole purpose is to put holes in animals and humans. One does not unholster his or her Magnum to get milk from the Moo Mart. A mentally disturbed teenager cannot call forth a tornado to wreak havoc on the bullies in his tenth grade English class. Assault weapons (the primary focus of the gun law GW Bush reversed upon election) are only manufactured to kill lots of people in a short amount of time with relatively little weapons skill. Were the gun laws that were enacted during the Clinton administration in place, I venture to say that there would have been a lot more people walking away from that Colorado theater. NORM

Actually, quite a bit: http://www.angelfire...JeffersonBible/ I used to meditate on it quite frequently some years ago. Of course, now I have the Talmud. NORM

I apologize for being an absentee thread-lord. I've had some unexplained issues with my Internet service, and I never post on forums during work. It turns out our service line from the street was chewed on by squirrels! How ironic is that!? The World Wide Web brought to a screeching halt by a few hungry squirrels (apparently they LOVE coaxial cable). Anyhow, this thread is a real encouragement for me. The consensus seems to be that yes; an Atheist (I prefer the term Non-theist) can follow in the footsteps of Jesus. I've shared excerpts of this thread with some of the members of my Minyan, and they were surprised at the positive responses. I am very proud to say that I am a member of the Progressive Christianity Forum! Thanks everyone for participating. NORM

Yes, I agree that it's time to once again return to common sense and ban the types of assault weapons used in mass killings of recent history and large capacity magazines. I've owned guns for hunting and home protection, and appreciate the right to own weapons for such. An assault rifle exists for only one reason: killing lots of people in a short amount of time. It was designed for warfare, not hunting. Had the shooter in Colorado only gotten his hands on a hunting rifle and legal firearms, many people in that theater would today be recounting a horrific tale instead of lining a casket. Joseph, I appreciate your opinion, but I think you are dead wrong on this one. NORM

I can relate to everything you said in your post - particularly this last one. I too stayed on in my church well past losing my religion. I simply immersed myself in all of the social action ministries of the church. However, inevitably, conversations would tend toward "well, what do you believe..." It became unbearably tiresome to continually have to defend my non-theistic worldview and the well-intentioned efforts to "re-convert" me. I eventually found refuge in my local Jewish community who were only interested in my mitzvah, and not my eternal soul. I wish you all the best, Neon. Props! NORM

We've danced around this issue throughout many of the threads in the Debate and Dialogue Forum. Time to call the question! It is possible to be a Jew and not believe in a deity. I know several. This is not something that is widely advertised, of course, but it is no secret that Judaism is about what one does, not what one believes, the Hasidim notwithstanding (they do not represent the majority). Even many Theistic Jews will tell you that they no longer believe in the coming Moshiac (Messiah in Christian terminology). This worldview emerged shortly after the Shoah. Many figured that if the Moshiac would not come to save his people from such horrendous persecution, then either the promises of G-d were mythology or worse; G-d had abandoned them. It took real chutzpah to evolve a third interpretation: G-d wants us to be responsible for our own salvation! No Deity required. This became the impetus to stress good works in society over obsession with G-d's promises of a land flowing with milk and honey that Jews could call their own. Zionists, of course, believe this land DOES exist; and is modern, secular Israel. Oy! Some Promised Land! So, is this same evolution possible in the Christian world? Is it enough to emulate the words and actions of Jesus? Do those words command a belief in the supernatural deity as an a priori position to hold in order to claim the mantle of Christianity? Should the Bible be the sole (infallible?) source of knowledge on the subject? Can an atheist be a Christian? NORM

I think the desperation has continued since the Scopes "Monkey Trial." As a child, I was taken to a Baptist Church. Once, I approached my Sunday School teacher with a How and Why Wonder Book on dinosaurs and I asked the teacher why the dinosaurs were not mentioned in the Bible. He pulled me aside and, as if sharing a profound secret, told me that the Devil deposited the dinosaur bones in the desert in order to lead mankind astray. I'm not kidding!! This would be hilarious if it weren't so...sad. NORM